Iraq Funding- Where Do We Go From Here?

So the House and the Senate have passed Iraq War funding bills, and both have timetables attached to the funding. Given that, President Bush has already stated his intention to veto the funding bill that comes to his desk. So what now?

Chris Bowers and David Sirota started the discussion, and mcjoan continues it. Essentially, the political dilemma is that passing a "clean" funding bill (a bill with no pork attached, and, more importantly, no timetables and no troop readiness requirements) will get signed by President Bush, at the expense of ever getting out of Iraq before a new President takes office. But, anything less than a "clean" bill will get vetoed by President Bush (if you believe his public pronouncements), and may not even get passed in Congress, given that so many Dems are reluctant to continue the open-ended commitment in Iraq. So, once again, what now?

I think David Sirota hits the nail on the head in his post. We're deep into political maneuvering here, and so it really does become an exercise in politics. Thus, the compromise and weakened bill that has already passed (and will presumably be vetoed) must be strengthened, not compromised and weakened further. Sirota explains (emphasis mine):

The beauty of the situation, however, is that a majority of Congress will now [be] on record supporting the current supplemental with its binding antiwar provisions, meaning a majority of Congress has already taken whatever political "hit" they will take, and there's no real political incentive to back off. If you've already voted for something you think you are going to get attacked on, even if you turn around and vote for something far weaker, you are still going to get attacked for your original vote. That's Politics 101, and every politician in Congress who's ever run a television ad knows that. Democrats standing their ground and demanding an end to the war is no longer risky, both because of public opinion, and because they are already on record making such demands.

So we know that Dems should stand their ground and perhaps even increase the restrictions on Iraq War funding. But that's tricky, too- how should we do this? Sirota again provides a few examples (emphasis mine):

Democrats don't have to send Bush back the exact same supplemental bill with the exact same language. The specific binding language to end the war in the current supplemental is not unique - that is, there are many ways to achieve the goals of that language in a binding way without simply copying and pasting that exact language into the new, post-veto supplemental.
Democrats could, for instance, call Bush's bluff on timetables and take out the sections about a timetables completely - all while tightening the troop training requirements and removing the waiver that lets Bush get out of such requirements. That has strong public support and would effectively end the war, because troops are simply not being trained and equipped fast enough to sustain the current rotation schedules in Iraq. Similarly, Democrats could put a provision in circumventing Bush by ordering military generals to join with a bipartisan, congressionally appointed commission to construct, within a month, a plan for withdrawal within a year that will automatically have the binding force of law. I'm just coming up with scenarios off the top of my head, but the point is that the possibilities to appear flexible while holding firm to binding antiwar goals are limitless and further, that achieving both is essential.

So maybe we don't need a timetable. Maybe all we need are really airtight troop readiness requirements that will essentially reduce our presence in Iraq. We'll see how this pans out (it's possible Bush will back down and just accept the funding with the timetables), but I see it as a good sign that Progressives are already thinking about the next step on the road to getting out of Iraq.